The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Peter Beinart Has Gone Full Antisemite
In his recent book and an oped column, he channels Nazi and other antisemitic propaganda about the Purim Holiday
The basic story of the holiday of Purim, which starts Thursday night, is this. The King of the Persian empire takes a Jewish bride, Esther, who conceals her Jewish identity. Meanwhile, the king's evil vizier, Haman, plots a genocide of Jews throughout the empire, and wins the king's blessing to undertake the massacre on the 14th day of the month of Adar. Esther's uncle Mordechai gets wind of the plot, and beseeches Esther to intervene. Esther persuades the king to execute Haman, but the decree approving the massacre cannot be revoked. The king instead gives Jews throughout the empire the right to defend themselves, and the following transpires:
For the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and slew three hundred men at Shushan; but on the prey they laid not their hand. But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness
The text could not be clearer that the Jews rose in self-defense, and killed not random people, but the enemies who were preparing the genocide.
Nevertheless, for centuries antisemites have distorted the text to suggest that Jews were inherently bloodthirsty chauvinists who sought to massacre the people around them. The Nazis, for obvious reasons, particularly loved to rely on a story about Jews fighting back against genocidal enemies to libel Jews. The holiday loomed so large in Nazi consciousness that just before Hitler henchmen Julius Streicher was hanged, he shouted out, "Purimfest 1946!" But you don't have to take my word for it:
So what sort of vicious antisemite would spread similar libels about Purim in 2025? For one, New York Times writer Peter Beinart. Beinart has evolved over the years from "liberal Zionist" to "non-Zionist" to "anti-Zionist" to his later iteration, which is "deranged antisemitic anti-Zionist."
Here he is in a column in the Guardian, based on his recent book, explaining Purim in the same terms as the Nazis and other antisemites:
On the 13th day of the month of Adar, the Jews kill 75,000 people. They declare the 14th "a day of feasting and merrymaking". With the blood of their foes barely dry, the Jews feast and make merry. That's the origin of Purim.
Purim isn't only about the danger Gentiles pose to us. It's also about the danger we pose to them.
For most of our history, when Jews had little capacity to impose our will via the sword, the conclusion of the book of Esther was a harmless and even understandable fantasy. Who can blame a tormented people for dreaming of a world turned upside down? But the ending reads differently when a Jewish state wields life and death power over millions of Palestinians who lack even a passport. Today, these blood-soaked verses should unsettle us. When we recite them aloud in synagogue, we should employ the anguished, sorrowful tune in which we chant the book of Lamentations, which depicts the destruction of our ancient temples.
Instead, most of us ignore the violence that concludes the Esther scroll. Some contemporary Jews justify it as self-defense. On the far right, some revel in it. But they're the exception. More often, we look away. We focus on what they tried to do to us.
No, Peter, we don't look away. According to the story (which is, fwiw, historical fiction), armed mobs of 75,000 people came to murder the entire Jewish population of the Persian Empire, who were innocent of any wrongdoing. The Jews killed them before they could do it. Hooray! If only someone had done this to the Nazis in 1938, we could be celebrating Purim II, instead of mourning on Yom HaShoah.
If this doesn't cost Beinart his job on the New York Times op-ed page, it's a terrible sign of how antisemitism has been normalized in elite discourse.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"wins the king's blessing to undertake the massacre"
I don't remember that part. Cite?
Esther 3:8-15
What's missing here is why the Iranian King agreed to kill the Jews in the first place, and why he couldn't stop the massacre.
"If only someone had done this to the Nazis in 1938, we could be celebrating Purim II, instead of mourning on Yom HaShoah."
This is the problem I have with Jewish thought -- the "if only someone" [else] concept. There were what -- 17 Million Jews in Europe circa 1930? If only 10% of them had been armed -- armed with a 6-shot revolver or double barrel shotgun -- there wouldn't have been a Holocaust because of the 1.7 Million armed Jews.
I read Esther as a warning...
Persian, not Iranian. And the underlying reason was that Mordechai refused to bow down to Haman, and Haman got mad, which is no better reason than antisemites generally have. I'm sure there are midrashim that explicate Haman's motives in more detail.
Iran *IS* Persia. the Iranians *ARE* Persians, not Arabs, and speak Farsi, i.e. Persian.
QED.....
No, Iranians are (mostly) Persian, but ancient Persians were not Iranians.
Before Iran was called Persia it was called Iran (or “Ear-Ron” as Barry Hussein insisted on pronouncing it)
Isn't that like saying the Romans weren't Italians?
I know Esther predates Islam by at least a thousand years (I'm presuming Esther predates Jesus by at least 500), but as I understand it, it's been occupied by more or less the same people for the past 6000 years.
What am I missing here?
A bit like that, yes. Caesar was not an Italian ruler.
Here's a decent overview including references to midrashim
https://www.thetorah.com/article/hamans-antisemitism-what-did-he-not-like-about-the-jews
Uh...what? Guess what they called Iran before 1935? It begins with "P" and ends with "ersia." My odjection to this post is lumping in all gentiles. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be the danger persians pose to jews. Which still exists today. Ask the Iranian supported animals in Syria and Gaza.
As usual Dr Ed lets us know there is no subject he won't pontificate ignorantly on. There was mass armed Jewish resistance to the Nazis. It was not able to achieve much, against an entire army and air force that was capable of defeating entire modern (in a contemporary sense) armed forces like those of France - particularly in the face of mass collaboration from many Christians in the invaded countries.
1: Other than the Warsaw Ghetto, name three.
2: Ever hear of a place called Vietnam?
3: The average Gestapo team, e.g. the one that captured Ann Frank, was two men and an officer. If her Uncle Otto had a 6-shooter and reasonable marksmanship, that'd be three dead Gestapo guys. It'd make it a LOT more difficult to round up the Jews.
1) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance
2) That's even more idiotic than your usual nonsense. The differences are numerous, not least that the US in Vietnam did not exact retribution against random civilians, and that the Vietnamese were not fighting the majority population of their country as well as the US.
3) When that was tried, the Nazis would round up a dozen, or a hundred, innocent civilians and shoot them. And yet, it was done repeatedly.
You really are an unbelievable cretin, even for one of the equine persuasion.
Everyones a big talker until you’ve got a gun in your face
There is a subtext of criticism of the Persian King as being more interested in wine, women, vanity, flattery, and money than in the affairs of his kingdom. In this regard, Haman’s flattery and large sum of money probably paid a large part.
As an indication of this subtext, there is a passage where the king can’t sleep at night, and asks his courtiers to read him the chronicles of his deeds to help him fall asleep.
The reason the king couldn’t simply reverse the decree is that royal decrees can’t be reversed. And the reason is obvious. If one was, that might suggest the king thought he was wrong. And we can’t let anyone think the all-knowing, all wise, very stable genius king is wrong, can we?
Let’s just say some might see a certain resemblance between the biblical depiction of this king and certain modern leaders.
"Esther persuades the king to execute Haman, but the decree approving the massacre cannot be revoked. "
" armed mobs of 75,000 people came to murder the entire Jewish population"
The way you describe it, without additional context:
The king's vizier can order a massacre that the king can't revoke.
And his unrevokable order, apparently, was for random mobs to gather to attack innocent Jews.
This take is silly, maybe add more context.
Not sure what you think is missing. The royal decree was for the Jews to be massacred. Esther asked for it to be rescinded, the king said no, we can't rescind decrees. So the substituted decree was, the Jews were allowed to defend themselves. Esther 8:5-12.
See: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Esther-Chapter-3/
Apparently once it was published and distributed, it couldn't be unpublished. The king's ring (verse 10) was the king's seal (for sealing wax) and hence all the copies sent out were official.
in fairness, this is how the Berlin Wall came down --a bureaucrat misspoke on TV.
Or maybe he was an arrogant man who didn't want to be seen as changing his mind.
See quadrennial questions to incumbant presidents to list one mistake they made, and they either say "nothing" or some stupid little thing.
Is that the conventional interpretation? To me, the “cannot be revoked” in Esther 8:8 seems like a clear reference to the new decree that Mordechai is supposed to write (i.e. the one authorizing the Jews to defend themselves), not the original one Haman sent out. I don’t read Hebrew, but the Vulgate has “nemo auderet contradicere.” That reads to me like the King reassuring Mordechai and Esther that whatever they write will be obeyed, not an excuse for why he can’t rescind Haman’s decree directly—a request that, as far as I can tell, is never discussed or even contemplated, and a restriction that indeed would be odd for a Persian King to feel bound by (or a classical Jewish author to think his audience would find plausible).
But the rule that a decree cannot be revoked applies to all decrees, and hence to the earlier one.
I don’t think it’s presented as a rule thought: in the Vulgate it’s definitely not, in the Septuagint and English versions I can find it’s at best ambiguous. And given how strange it would be for a Persian king to feel bound by such a rule, I’m not sure why it makes sense to read it that way. (If the Hebrew suggests otherwise, definitely let me know!)
Whether it makes historical sense or not, it's a key part of the story of Esther: there was at least one kind of decree the king could make which was absolute and irrevocable. (As far as I remember, he could also make revocable laws, but some were absolutely binding, even on a king.)
Esther 8:3-8.
Esther asked for the decree to be rescinded. That could not happen because of the no-rescinding rule. So he told them to write a new decree as they saw fit.
Again, please let me know if the Hebrew suggests otherwise, but that’s not what it seems to say. It says Esther asked the King to eliminate (Gr: ἀφελεῖν, Lat: irritas fiery) Haman’s. She asks him to undo (Gr: ἀποστραφῆναι, Lat: corrigantur) Haman’s order. He doesn’t say that he can’t do it: on the contrary, he tells Esther and Mordechai to issue whatever order they want (Gr: ὡς δοκεῖ ὑμῖν, Lat: sicut vobis placet). The next clause seems to me yo be reassurance that their order will be obeyed. I don’t see anything suggesting they even contemplated simply trying to revoke Haman’s directive.
The Hebrew word is לְהָשִׁ֣יב. Which means to return or call back.
Her first request is:
יִכָּתֵ֞ב לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִ֗ים מַֽחֲשֶׁ֜בֶת הָמָ֤ן
Let it be written to return the writs of the plan of Haman.
She wanted the original decree recalled. That's plain in the text.
BTW, this aspect of Persian law is also mentioned in Daniel, where King Darius' advisors tell him that he should decree a law that cannot be repealed:
Now, O king, you shall issue a decree and inscribe a writ that will not be amended, like the law of Media and Persia, which will not be repealed.
Daniel 6:9.
I believe it’s actually 6:8. But at any rate, I’m not sure that says that the King can’t change his own laws—rather, it seems like the concern would be to ensure that Daniel, the second most powerful person in the kingdom, couldn’t change it.
The text in Hebrew refers generically to decrees, not to any specific one. It's not entirely clear from the text, which often uses poetic devices, whether the issue is that a decree from the king *cannot* be revoked or whether it's something that is just not done.
The book of Esther is pretty short and easily available online. Read it, and then let me know what you think I've missed.
I think you missed the part where this is all make believe. You are literally having a hissy fit over the NYT critiquing a fairytale. Aren’t you a little old for fairytales?
You know, if you want more context, the full story is available in multiple translations in every library and practically in every household in America. Likely including your own.
I bet the Book of Ester is as common as the Bible.
Silly me -- I thought it was IN the Bible.
*whoosh*
See my comment above. If a royal decrees were revoked, that might give some the impression the king thought he was wrong. And surely such a great, mighty, all-wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, very stable genius king can never be wrong, can he? The very thought might lower his self-esteem. Much better that 75,000 people die than allow that to happen.
Some contemporary Jews justify it as self-defense.
The writer of the Book of Esther did so.
Poor Peter Beinart. Like much of the world, he loves Jews as victims. He hates the notion that Jews might defend themselves and take destruction to their sworn enemies.
Exodus 22.2 is more direct.
Peter Beinart has no such belief. He is a paid stooge for antisemites, not a useful idiot. The useful idiots are bad enough, the craven, historically ignorant fools who mistakenly believe helping their enemies will keep them out of the gas chambers are worse, and the very worst of all are the grifters like Beinart who are happy to take antisemites' money to betray their own people (and provide some of the vanishingly rare examples of Jewish people actually matching antisemitic stereotypes, into the bargain).
If this doesn't cost Beinart his job on the New York Times op-ed page, it's a terrible sign of how antisemitism has been normalized in elite discourse.
Professor Bernstein, I don't think The Old Grey Hag will part ways with Peter Beinart.
This seems an inter-Judiaism conflict. Beinart is spicier with the language, but I get the sense that his view is not uncommon among reform Jews.
I don't know how I feel about entireties to third parties to sanction Jews that Bernstein thinks have gone beyond the pale.
This would be an intra-communal conflict if he was a rabbi who gave a sermon about how he finds it disturbing how Jews celebrate the death of 75K people, even if they were genocidal enemies. It's a public controversy because he wrote a column for The Guardian with a 99% non-Jewish audience claiming that Purim shows that Jewish culture is dangerous to non-Jews.
Well put; that is a fair point.
In other words, a shanda fur die goyim?
"inter-Judiaism "
Intra
But he's not writing for a Jewish publication but a big left wing newspaper.
Pseudo-left-wing, pseudo-newspaper, at this point. The Guardian sold out years ago, just like all the other major broadsheets.
What, pray tell, do you see as "(p)seudo-left-wing, pseudo-newspaper" WRT The Guardian? You think it in truth is "conservative," "middle-of-the-road," or something other than "left-wing"? If so, what, and what competing publications are more deserving of the epithet than The Guardian? And if a "pseudo-newspaper," then what other publications would you so identify and which do you count as "real" newspapers? (I trust you are not talking about whether there are print editions or not.)
And what do you mean when you say that The Guardian "sold out years ago"? Do you mean that at a former time they were more reliable, more objective, less hostile to Israel, or what?
Whut?
Their pretensions to being left wing are nonsense. They frequently fall for fash propaganda, Iranian propaganda, Russian propaganda, and so-on. That's because, not being a real paper anymore, they have no-one working for them with more than the bare minimum of brains.
And their pretension to still be a real newspaper is obvious nonsense, as it is for basically every other newspaper in the world. The majority of their readers are online. They exist to gain clicks and sell ads.
I really don't know what political/partisan point you imagined I was making, but my comment was not that.
Were you trying to suggest that they must be left wing, because they're wildly antisemitic? I assure you, that is very much not the sole preserve of the left.
FYI, here is a page of an antique megillat Esther I inherited from my grandfather:.
How old is it? It is beautiful.
I don't know - I'd need to take it to an expert. The ornate tagin are splendid, no?
As the old French ditty has it:
Cet animal est très méchant,
Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
Beinart is "a schande far di goyim" (אַ שאַנדע פֿאַר די גויים)
Yes indeed
and a Schmuck
Are you still under the delusion that there is anyone on the left that isn't like this?
What’s his take on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? Genocidal Jews massacre poor, innocent Germans?
The Purim shpiel writes itself.
It’s been a while since I read Esther but a quick skim reads to me like a preemptive attack.
Obviously it’s impossible to know at this time if it was warranted.
I hate Anti-Semite Semites!
Having now done a closer reading of Esther than I probably have ever done before, one thing struck me as notable.
Esther and Mordechai’s order says that the Jews, in arming and defending themselves, could kill women and children and “take the spoil of them for a prey” (KJV). Despite the rather impressive casualty figures, the text is explicit that Jews don’t do this, instead limiting their actions to what is necessary to prevent their extermination.
So to the extent we’re looking to draw a lesson relevant to modern Israel, I think it’s rather the opposite of what Beinart suggests.
The rabbis noted this fact. Recall that Haman is noted to be an "Agagite." This is a reference to Agag king of Amalek, who is mentioned in 1 Samuel 15. King Saul had been commanded to utterly destroy the Amalekites, including their property, but he spared Agag the king, and also the Amalekite sheep and cattle. For which he lost the kingdom.
The actions of Mordechai and Esther were a kind of makeup for that breach.
Oh my god! Who cares! Esther is a fictional story from the old testament. How could it possibly be anti-semitic to have a different version or interpretation of a fairytale. None of this actually happened anyway. David Bernstein is a nut who now just claims everything is anti-semitic. What next? Is he going to find anti-semitism in the story of Adam and Eve?
Or, "it's not happening, stop exaggerating!" stage 3.
I see reading is not your strong suit.
It matters to the fundamentalists among us who take the Bible literally. Actually, once you stop taking it as literal history it does have some pretty good stuff. And some pretty bad stuff. As with most other things, learning which is which is the trick.
However, that does pose another, more immediate issue. Jewish claims to the land are based on the Bible. if the whole thing is a fairy tale, then those claims evaporate.
I would argue that the entire Middle East is an example of how religion poisons things. You've got Muslims and Jews each claiming that their god gave it to them. Take religion out of it and reasonable people might just be able to work out a solution that, if not 100% satisfactory to everyone, would at least allow the issues to be discussed in a more rational way. There's probably plenty of land for both of them.
What actually happened 2500 years ago is beyond irrelevant. What we choose to celebrate today, and how, matters. No Purim celebration I've been too has celebrated the killing of Haman's supporters. Everyone understands that mores were different 2500 years ago. Just because people celebrate some part of the Bible does not mean they endorse all of it. The Bible treats slavery as normal -- does that mean every Bible-based holiday celebrates slavery?
You should publish a commentary to that in a major newspaper!
I do not see the libel here. Jews do indeed celebrate stories of persecution and survival and/or revenge. Beinart says: There’s a joke that every Jewish holiday has the same plot: “They tried to kill us, we survived, let’s eat.”
These stories do indeed inform us that Israel was sure to retaliate for the Oct. 7 attacks. Did anyone have any doubt? Hamas had to know that this would be the end of Gaza as we knew it.
Beinart ends up saying both Israel and Hamas are evil. He probably thinks that both sides of every war are evil. It is just an opinion.
I don't have much to contribute on the substance of this post, but I want to recognize Prof Bernstein for his continued willingness to engage with the readers in the comments section. Other VC contributors would be well served by following his example.